It's literally just running an algorithm over your data and spitting out the results for you. Fundamentally it's no different from spellcheck, or automatically creating a table of contents from header styles.
As long as the results stay private to you (which in this case, they are), I don't see what the concern is. The fact that the algorithm is LLM-based has zero relevance regarding privacy or security.
I don't want any results from AI. I don't even want to see them. And there is too much of a grey area. What if they use how I use the results to improve their AI. I hate AI also and want nothing to do with its automations.
If I want a document summarized, I will read it myself. I still want to be human and do things AT A REASONABLE LEVEL with my own two hands.
OK, sure. But then just don't use it.
The problem is that you're calling for a legal policy against it to be "mandatory, enforced, and come with strict fines".
Have your own personal preferences, that's great. But I don't want you imposing your preferences on the products I use. I want companies and the market to decide.
An auto-summary feature that is enabled by default is not something we should be asking for government regulation over, any more than we should be asking the government to prohibit wavy red lines unless they're explicitly opted into.